Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-02011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Harris v. City of New York, Judge Cronan requested volunteer counsel for Plaintiff but kept the December 16, 2024 trial schedule unchanged.
Mary L. Harris, who may receive assistance from a volunteer lawyer if one agrees to represent her; the case schedule and the City of New York were otherwise left unchanged.
What happened
In Harris v. City of New York, Mary L. Harris asked the court to help find a volunteer lawyer for her civil case. The court had already allowed her to proceed without paying court fees and found that her claims were likely substantial.
The court cited possible credibility disputes involving Harris and other witnesses, as well as potentially complex legal issues, including issues related to a recent Supreme Court decision. These factors supported seeking volunteer representation.
Judge John P. Cronan directed the clerk to try to locate a volunteer lawyer, while explaining that no lawyer was guaranteed and that the court could not pay counsel. The case will continue on its existing schedule, with trial set for December 16, 2024.
The detailed version
- Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration · No. 1:20-cv-02011
- John Cronan
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
The court had previously allowed Mary L. Harris to proceed without paying court fees, which established that she was unable to afford counsel for purposes of the federal statute governing requests for volunteer lawyers. Harris then indicated that she wanted a lawyer through the court’s volunteer-lawyer program.
The court explained that, in civil cases, it cannot require the government to supply or pay for a lawyer. Instead, it may ask a lawyer to volunteer. Courts make these requests sparingly and consider whether the claims appear likely to have substance, along with factors such as the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the likelihood that witness credibility will be important, the complexity of the legal issues, and other circumstances affecting whether a lawyer would help produce a fair result.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Harris’s claims were likely to be substantial, relying on reasons discussed in its earlier summary-judgment opinion. The court said that many of the claims might depend on credibility—meaning the factfinder may need to decide whether Harris and other people’s testimony is believable. The court also said that the defendant’s pretrial statement showed that the case might involve complex legal issues, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.
The court stated that these factors strongly supported requesting volunteer representation. It also explained that a volunteer lawyer might not be found quickly, that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case, and that Harris should be prepared to continue without a lawyer. If a lawyer volunteers, that lawyer will contact Harris directly, and Harris may decide whether to retain that lawyer.
Order and Effect
The court requested that the clerk try to locate volunteer counsel for Harris. It did not order a lawyer to represent her or provide funds for counsel. The court left all existing deadlines unchanged and stated that trial remained scheduled to begin on December 16, 2024. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Harris, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning a request for volunteer counsel. It did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.